Lenses Annie Dillard anaylisis

To me, Annie Dillard addresses the same principle of total apocalypses and the end of the world, yet her tone and mood throughout the essay were completely debatable., in "Lenses", Dillard narrates how she used to enjoy "setting up" several "apocalypses" with the living creatures she retrieves from a pond . She clearly states that she would stage “hundreds” “ends-of-the-world” and observe “enthralled” as the organisms start roasting (106). This completely defeats the purpose of her earlier essay, due to the fact that it seems that she is in favor of the world’s destruction. She actually enjoys the mass murder of many creatures that are defenseless to humans. Why would she change her mind all of a sudden? Is she trying to provide us with both sides of the argument? This may be a sort of allegory for the effect of science: how too much scientific investigation can destroy what you are investigating". I really liked your statement here; in some it supports my opinion on the essay. For instance, if it is an allegory of how too much science may destroy the investigation, we could compare it to how too much science may deteriorate our planet (I have never been so environmentalist before). The constant growth of human technologies and experiments could be industrializing the Earth, replacing its nature with machines, destroying the wild life we do experiments on. A possible analogy could be how scientists study the rainforests around the globe, yet the jet fuel they use to travel is slowly ravaging the air and damaging their source of investigation. It actually seems as if Dillard plays the image of scientists and humans who are destroying the natural beauty on our planet while being fascinated by the sight of it . She casts the image that those who harm the Earth’s nature do it for the fun of it. However, I still can’t fit the swans into my analysis.